The cars are being unveiled one by one. Test days are coming up. I’m happy to announce Season 2 of the F1 Oracle!

The rules are very simple. Before every F1 race weekend you predict the answers to 13 questions. Every answer that turns out to be right, earns you 1 point.

On top of that – and this is the only significant change compared to last year – you get to place a joker on one of the 13 questions each race weekend. If your answer to that question turns out to be correct, you win a bonus. The bonus score is determined by the number of players that gave a wrong answer to that same question. It’s like your own personal DRS! This replaces the bonus system we had last year.

Edit: To assure that the bonuses are well balanced, the bonus score will be calculated as a fraction of the total number of players in the round. Based on the 2016 results these fractions are calculated as follows:

6 players or less: 100% of the number of wrong answers7 players: 75% of the number of wrong answers8 players: 65% of the number of wrong answers9 players: 60%10 players: 55%11 players: 50%12 players: 45%13-14 players: 40%15-16 players: 35%17-20 players: 30%21-25 players: 25%

All resulting bonus scores will be rounded off to the nearest integer.(If you're interested in the underlying reasoning of the bonus system, see the 8th post of this thread.)

Take for example the last race of the 2016 season, in Abu Dhabi. The game had 10 participants. Placing the joker on the prediction that Hamilton would qualify first, would have netted 1 bonus point: only one contender predicted a different quali winner, 0.55%*1=0.55. Rounded up to 1. Placing the joker on Vettel setting the fastest lap, like three players predicted: 4 bonus points (7*0.55=3.85. Rounded up to 4). Etc.

These are the 13 questions:

1. Quali winner [driver]No. 1 in the official classification of qualifying. Penalties that result in grid position changes are not taken into account.

4. Quali surprise [driver]This is the driver who qualifies highest compared to his WDC ranking. Official qualifying results apply. So, that’s before any grid penalties. For the Australian GP, the 2016 WDC table will be used.

5. Quali victim [driver]This is the driver who qualifies lowest compared to his WDC ranking. Official qualifying results (before grid penalties) apply. Drivers that fail to set a lap time can still be classified. For the Australian GP, the 2016 WDC table will be used.

6. Overachiever race [driver]Driver who ends the race in the highest position, compared to his WDC ranking. Only drivers finishing the race in the top 10 (official result) are eligible. This is to avoid attrition to be the dominant factor. (A backmarker who finishes last will still finish the race higher than his WDC ranking if there are DNFs.) For the Australian GP, the 2016 WDC table will be used.

7. Underperformer race [driver]Driver who ends the race in the worst position, compared to his WDC ranking. All race finish positions are eligible. Driver needs to be classified. For the Australian GP, the 2016 WDC table will be used.

8. First lap hero [driver]Driver who wins most race positions in the first lap. If all positions stay the same, no driver will be named first lap hero. New rule: In the case a wet race is started behind the safety car, followed by a standing restart, it's this restart that will be used to determine the first lap hero.

9. First lap zero [driver] Driver who loses most race positions in the first lap. Retirements in lap 1 are not included. If all positions stay the same, no driver will be named first lap zero. New rule: In the case a wet race is started behind the safety car, followed by a standing restart, it's this restart that will be used to determine the first lap zero.

10. First man out [driver]Driver that retires from the race first. Decided by lap count. So even if one retirement happened noticeably earlier than a second, if both happened in the same lap, both answers are right. Note that ‘none’ is a valid answer too.

11. Safety cars [number]This is the number of times (different occasions) the safety car is deployed during the race. The number of safety car laps is not relevant. Virtual safety cars are not included.

12. Race leaders (number]Number of different drivers that crossed start/finish line first over the course of the race. Pole position does not count as leading the race.

13. Classified [number]Number of cars that are classified; note that cars can be classified after completing 90% of the race distance.

Answers need to be in before the start of Qualifying of each race.Editing your answers is allowed, as long as it’s done before the deadline. Make sure you clearly indicate which of the 13 is your joker question before the deadline.

I will probably be entering this one as well. My plan of focusing on my title bid in the Pick 10 competition last year failed in soul-crushing fashion, so this year I'll just enter every competition and maybe I'll win one of them!

Perhaps this table can be of help when deciding which question to nominate for the joker. It lists the number of different answers per question for every GP in 2016. A grey cell means the correct answer was not predicted by any of the 10 (or 9) players.

I'm testing the new bonus system. It looks like it could easily have an overpowering effect, especially if our player base grows.The purpose of the bonus is to add tactical choice and also a certain amount of unpredictability to the game. In my opinion, the bonus score should (on average) not overbalance the normal score.

That's why I'm looking into some alternative scoring: the same rules and scoring system, but with a different number of points for correct answers. First impressions are that with 10-20 players, doubling or even tripling the points for every correct answer to the 13 questions (while keeping the bonus at 1 point per wrong answer of rival players), seems to work much better.

There are a couple uncertainties that make it difficult to pick the right system now:- the number of players the game will get.- how players will use jokers: will they pick the high reward questions or the high probability questions?

I have edited the OP to reflect this ongoing search. I'll keep you posted and welcome any thoughts.

Perhaps a way to use that joker system would be to have the bonus multiplication reduced depending on how many entrants there are. So let's say we get the ten players we had last season; the bonus could be worth 50% of the incorrect answers. If that number rises up towards 20 active players, the percentage could be reduced down to 33% or even 25%. That way the bonus would be worth three points if there were six incorrect answers (with ten of us playing) but potentially still worth three points if there were 12 incorrect answers with 20 of us participating. If we said ten players equals a 50% bonus, it could even then be calculated on a sliding scale whereby every extra participant at any race reduces the bonus by 2.5%.

I don't know how much that would help, and you could of course start from a higher percentage (say, 66% for ten players, dropping 3% with every extra participant) if it means the bonus ends up being too small. However, if the problem is that the bonus is too powerful then that might be a way to water it down a little whilst still retaining a system that seems quite promising.

Oh, and I'll be back to defend my title this year. I finished so far ahead last year I've decided to forgo any winter testing and just go straight to Melbourne

Yes, I think it’s a good call to vary the bonus, not the regular score.

In 2016 28% of all answers given was correct, 72% was wrong. Based on this, I calculated the expected bonus score with different number of players. Of course, picking a higher risk answer should result in a higher bonus when correct, picking a low risk answer in a lower bonus score.

Then the main question is, what would be a good, balanced range for the bonus score? My gut feeling is that the average expected bonus score should be high enough to have an impact, but lower than the expected normal score of the winner. The average score in a GP per player was 3.7 points in 2016. The round winner took 5.8 points on average. Last season’s overall winner (that would be Jenson’s Understeer) took 4.9 points on average per GP. I think the expected bonus should be between these values of 3.7 and 4.9 points. Again, this bonus can be (much) higher if you’re prepared to take more risks with your jokers.

The table below shows the expected bonus based on the 2016 answers for different number of players. In red are the numbers when the bonus score is too high (in my opinion), in blue are the numbers where the jokers don’t have enough impact. The sweet spots are the green numbers. I’m leaning towards the lower end of the proportion scale, the framed numbers.

I wouldn’t like to introduce decimal points into the game, so I propose all resulting bonus scores will be rounded off to the nearest integer.

Example 1:Say in Melbourne, we have 15 entries. You predict Hamilton to drive the fastest lap and use your joker on this question. It turns out you were right. Out of the 14 other contenders, 7 predicted a different driver for the fastest lap. Your bonus is: 0.35*7=2.45 points (rounded down to 2).

Example 2:Again with 15 entries in the first GP, you correctly predict Magnussen to be the first lap hero (joker). You were the only one to do so. Your bonus is: 0.35*14=4.9 (rounded up to 5).

Now, 2 and 5 points don’t seem like all that much. But when the average normal score (in 2016) is 3.7, this will have a nice big impact without making the answers to all of your other 12, joker-less questions insignificant.

Yes, I think it’s a good call to vary the bonus, not the regular score.

In 2016 28% of all answers given was correct, 72% was wrong. Based on this, I calculated the expected bonus score with different number of players. Of course, picking a higher risk answer should result in a higher bonus when correct, picking a low risk answer in a lower bonus score.

Then the main question is, what would be a good, balanced range for the bonus score? My gut feeling is that the average expected bonus score should be high enough to have an impact, but lower than the expected normal score of the winner. The average score in a GP per player was 3.7 points in 2016. The round winner took 5.8 points on average. Last season’s overall winner (that would be Jenson’s Understeer) took 4.9 points on average per GP. I think the expected bonus should be between these values of 3.7 and 4.9 points. Again, this bonus can be (much) higher if you’re prepared to take more risks with your jokers.

The table below shows the expected bonus based on the 2016 answers for different number of players. In red are the numbers when the bonus score is too high (in my opinion), in blue are the numbers where the jokers don’t have enough impact. The sweet spots are the green numbers. I’m leaning towards the lower end of the proportion scale, the framed numbers.

I wouldn’t like to introduce decimal points into the game, so I propose all resulting bonus scores will be rounded off to the nearest integer.

Example 1:Say in Melbourne, we have 15 entries. You predict Hamilton to drive the fastest lap and use your joker on this question. It turns out you were right. Out of the 14 other contenders, 7 predicted a different driver for the fastest lap. Your bonus is: 0.35*7=2.45 points (rounded down to 2).

Example 2:Again with 15 entries in the first GP, you correctly predict Magnussen to be the first lap hero (joker). You were the only one to do so. Your bonus is: 0.35*14=4.9 (rounded up to 5).

Now, 2 and 5 points don’t seem like all that much. But when the average normal score (in 2016) is 3.7, this will have a nice big impact without making the answers to all of your other 12, joker-less questions insignificant.

Thoughts?

I think you've got it bang on TBH.

I think someone who plays a risky joker which works out should be in the running to win the round, but not to win by so much that it effects the overall league too much. Your proposal seems to do that.

Seeing the numbers detailed like that (really good analysis, by the way) is really useful. It's right around what I was expecting it to be, and I think you're in the right ballpark with the percentages you've selected. Going higher is going to result in a situation where bonuses dominate, whilst going lower would mean they have no real impact. So I'd go with the ones you've selected. The only thing to add would be that, in the event whereby the bonuses are much higher than expected in the first few races, would it be worth saying it's something that can be reviewed and tweaked (if necessary) after say, four or five races?

Picking the percentage numbers as above, will effectively cap the bonus at 5 or 6 points at most.To see how this would work out in reality, I looked at the 2016 Australian GP as an example. I added five fictional players to the 10 actual entries from last year. Then I almost randomly assigned a joker for each player (the blue cells). You can see the impact of the bonus in the resulting scores.

1. Quali winner: Hamilton2. Race winner: Hamilton3. Fastest lap: Vettel4. Quali surprise: Stroll5. Quali victim: Alonso6. Overachiever race: Stroll *JOKER*7. Underperformer race: Perez8. First lap hero: Massa 9. First lap zero: Stroll10. First man out: Alonso (FWIW, I had a dream last night where Alonso ended up in the gravel on the first lap and had to retire. Admittedly, this was in Barcelona, and he was trying to go round the outside of a Red Bull, but I'm still going to take it as a sign for this weekend!)11. Safety cars: 112. Race leaders: 313. Classified: 14

The 'First Lap Zero' really feels like a stab in the dark. It's just going to be some unlucky sod who gets hit and spun around or whatever - out of them all, that's really the one I feel most like I'm just totally guessing at.

I hope you all don't mind I keep the results dry and factual this season.The way I did it last year required precision first (making no mistakes) and some creativity when writing second. I found that to be a fairly difficult combination, especially when I was tired and trying to get the results out on the day of the GP. And in the end, I felt the little write-ups didn't add much to the information in the score table anyway.

I will some post additional analytics after 4 or 5 races, esp. the table with points scored per question/player.

Over the whole of last season, there was only one race with a lower average score per player (1.1 in Azerbaijan) than in Oz '17 (2.0, excluding Mayhem's bonus). Spain '16 (where the Mercs took each other out) had the same 2.0 average per player.The upside from this: if there are any potential players still on the fence about this game: it's not too late to join and win the Oracle 2017!